State v. Matkins
| Decision Date | 25 March 1931 |
| Docket Number | 30945 |
| Citation | 37 S.W.2d 422 |
| Parties | STATE v. MATKINS |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Stratton Shartel, Atty. Gen., and Carl J. Otto, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
The defendant was indicted by a grand jury of Sullivan county Mo., on the 13th day of September, 1928, for embezzlement of public money, in the amount of $ 236.04, belonging to the county of Sullivan and the state of Missouri, received by him as county treasurer of Sullivan county. The date of the embezzlement is fixed in the indictment as 'on or about the 30th day of June, 1928.' The indictment further alleged that the defendant so commingled the funds coming into his possession as county treasurer that the grand jurors were unable to particularly describe the money so embezzled; neither could they determine the particular source or fund from which the money embezzled came.
Defendant applied for a change of venue. The application was granted, and the cause transferred to Linn county, where defendant was tried and convicted, and the punishment and sentence fixed at two years in the state penitentiary.
The record does not disclose that a bill of exceptions was filed, neither was there one filed in this court. Therefore we have only the record proper before us for our review.
The defendant questions the sufficiency of the indictment in this case. The same points were made by this defendant in State v. Matkins, No. 30280, 34 S.W.2d 1, not yet reported [in State Report]. In that case this court held the indictment sufficient. We do not deem it necessary to restate or review the question again in this opinion. We approve the reasoning of the learned Commissioner Cooley in the above case. The indictments in the two cases are similar. The record entry as to arraignment is as follows:
'Thereafter, on the same day, to-wit, the 21st day of October, 1929, defendant waived formal arraignment and refused to plead; whereupon, plea of not guilty was entered for said defendant by the court.'
The record further discloses that a jury was thereafter duly impaneled and sworn to try the defendant. The verdict of the jury was returned on October 22, 1929. It is as follows:
'We, the jury, find the defendant, W. A. Matkins, guilty as charged in the indictment and assess his punishment at imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for a term of 2 years.'
This is a proper verdict. State v. Martin (Mo. Sup.) 292 S.W. 39.
The motion for new trial was filed on the 30th day of October within the statutory time allowed by the court. This motion was overruled on November 15, 1929, and thereafter, on the same day, defendant was duly sentenced in accordance with the verdict. The defendant contends in a plea in abatement, motion to discharge, plea in bar, plea of former conviction, and in the motion for new trial, that the present case involves and covers the same transactions as those in case No. 30280, supra. Upon a comparison of the present record with the opinion and the record in case No. 30280, we have reached the...
To continue reading
Request your trial